I am currently playing my second No Spoils game. I really enjoyed my first game, not only because I won. It was on the Phillipines map. There was a fair amount of attacking and the capturing of bonus', defending borders was really important, and I like that. It was also a fog game.

The one I am currently playing is on the Luxemborg map. I saw this game that thought, that looks like a small map, it will be a nice quick game, so I joined it. Wrong!! There is very little action on the game. All we seem to do is build more and more armies on our borders. Occassionally we will advance one space. I am as bad as the rest of them. There is no incentive for doing much else.

Are most No Spoils Games like this, or is it just the nature of the map, or just the way we are all playing.

nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking

Until there's 3 or 4 players left

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking

Until there's 3 or 4 players left

Yes, but by then someone's bound to have the upper hand, and can easily win, unless everyone else does something - either way, loads of action!

nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking

Until there's 3 or 4 players left

Yes, but by then someone's bound to have the upper hand, and can easily win, unless everyone else does something - either way, loads of action!

You know this from having played one game? I wish I had your talent man!

AoG for President of the World!!I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!

nicestash wrote:Also, play with more people. If there're only 3 or 4 players, there's no incentive for anyone to take out anyone else. But if there's 6-8 players, everyone gets away with more attacking

Until there's 3 or 4 players left

Yes, but by then someone's bound to have the upper hand, and can easily win, unless everyone else does something - either way, loads of action!

You know this from having played one game? I wish I had your talent man!

It isn't talent - I've watched several games between veterans, and also, being new to CC doesn't mean I'm new to Risk! ;D

No spoils is boring. I prefer the nail-biting, stomach-churning large escalating game where getting that crucial elimination is tenuous, and when it works out you cascade cashes into a glorious single turn victory.

72o wrote:No spoils is boring. I prefer the nail-biting, stomach-churning large escalating game where getting that crucial elimination is tenuous, and when it works out you cascade cashes into a glorious single turn victory.

Not at all!!! No spoils counts on your gray matter! That is of course if you play team games (standard no spoil games can definitely be very boring sometimes). Now don't get me wrong, I love Esc games, but sometimes it can rely a lot on luck (and then don't mention the noobs that don't know how Escs work).

With Escalating spoils it is more of a Wheel of fortune or the Roulette wheel to be more precise. Any strategical play in the beginning can be offset at the end of the game by who ever receives the big enough spoils set trade to turn in first in the nick of time. So a large part of the strategy to Escalating Spoils is to survive to the point in the game where the spoils trade will work for you. In larger number of players it is more luck then attacking strategies as the strategy is simply to survive. In any game map with 6 or more players.

With less players in the game however, attacking Strategies can serve a greater purpose in the game even with Escalating spoils because there are less variables. That is to say that it can be more easily calculated how and what the spoils will be on which turn and to whom. But the ultimate in Strategy Games is found in the No Spoils game, on small or medium size maps with fewer players, especially in team games of doubles.

Add the Trench Warfare setting on top of all that and it becomes a whole different ball park in Strategy Games.

It gets more and more pointless to watch people arguing again and again about escalating vs flat/no spoil types of game. They are just two different type of games, with different characteristics.What is certain and all top players would agree I think, is that playing non escalating games with more than 2 "players" leads to frustrating stalemates. I would even go much further and say that ANY non escalating game with 3 or more players or parties that play reasonably enough will always lead to stalemate unless fog,trench and map objectives create dangerously dynamic situations.The round limit option boosted non escalating games. There is much more sence to play those games now. In my opinion, fog is necessary. Being the last to play offers a considerable advantage otherwise in my opinion.

Kaskavel wrote:It gets more and more pointless to watch people arguing again and again about escalating vs flat/no spoil types of game. They are just two different type of games, with different characteristics.What is certain and all top players would agree I think, is that playing non escalating games with more than 2 "players" leads to frustrating stalemates. I would even go much further and say that ANY non escalating game with 3 or more players or parties that play reasonably enough will always lead to stalemate unless fog,trench and map objectives create dangerously dynamic situations.The round limit option boosted non escalating games. There is much more sence to play those games now. In my opinion, fog is necessary. Being the last to play offers a considerable advantage otherwise in my opinion.

QFT (I feel like I always enjoy Kaskavel's posts)

A lot of people say escalating is "all luck." It's not anymore true for escalating than it is for other game types. It's just that there's a different element of luck. What cards you get and when is more important than dice oftentimes. In no spoils, the dice are the most important. Flat rate is somewhere in between. It's not that there's necessarily less luck involved in no spoils games. It's just a different kind of luck.

I think there is a difference in the amount of luck involved in the different types of spoils games.

Risk is determined by four things: Dice, Drop, Strategy, Cards.

If you take away the cards then only three things influence the game. If you control 1/3 as opposed to 1/4 I feel like there is more strategy involved and you yourself have more control over the game.

I do also agree though that they are very different games depending on what you are playing and that they do have different characteristics and play styles/strategies.

I would also agree though that in a no spoils game strategy plays a bigger roll than a spoils game.

Nuclear often plays like no spoils, but cornering your enemy onto certain territories so you can cash and nuke does play a roll.

However comparing flat rate and esc. I would say flat rate is more luck based. With Esc cashes are predictable and I agree that usually the team/person that gets that first lucky 3 set is often the one that comes out with the win.

Flat rate I think is more luck based because if a team/player is getting or gets lots of 8/10 sets at 3 cards that can drastically make or break games often.

Jippd wrote:I think there is a difference in the amount of luck involved in the different types of spoils games.

Risk is determined by four things: Dice, Drop, Strategy, Cards.

If you take away the cards then only three things influence the game. If you control 1/3 as opposed to 1/4 I feel like there is more strategy involved and you yourself have more control over the game.

I do also agree though that they are very different games depending on what you are playing and that they do have different characteristics and play styles/strategies.

I would also agree though that in a no spoils game strategy plays a bigger roll than a spoils game.

Nuclear often plays like no spoils, but cornering your enemy onto certain territories so you can cash and nuke does play a roll.

However comparing flat rate and esc. I would say flat rate is more luck based. With Esc cashes are predictable and I agree that usually the team/person that gets that first lucky 3 set is often the one that comes out with the win.

Flat rate I think is more luck based because if a team/player is getting or gets lots of 8/10 sets at 3 cards that can drastically make or break games often.

Walthobum wrote:if you play escalating games mostly i think it means you don't really like 'playing' the game so much as rolling the dice and seeing if you've won.

Probably in many cases you're right. Escalating games requires less strategy for sure, but I think one fun aspect of playing escalating spoils is just to see how massive you can get. Even though I'm starting only no spoils games now (I do enjoy them more), I just finished a 117 round game with spoils up to 730 troops. I had over 14,000 troops at one point. I must say that it was quite enjoyable Even though I didn't win. It was a shame, really, I thought I had it for sure.

The more games I play on here, the more I've begun to appreciate no spoils more. So much to that point, that's almost the only game I play now. Esc is fun for it's own merits, like as previously mentioned; there really is something magical and fun about cascading cash-ins, and finding your self with a few extra dozen (or more!) troops that turn.

But no spoils, on small maps with a balanced number of experienced players is just... something else. 4-8 is that very same magic number. But where the most fun is easily in the diplomacy and placement strategy. Since you don't HAVE to attack, attacking becomes more necessary for survival. Since everyone is running his or her own strategy, the variables are to the point of absurdity in prediction. Talking is essential, but the more one talks the more one is liable to give away. Everyone wants to win. Motivating actions...

I personally play a lot more escalating games than anything else because I am a Freemium and in the SoC Training. Being a Fremium means that I only have four game slots to use and so since I am in the SoC I need to focus for now in a certain way of playing. Which is the Classic Map, Escalating Spoils game.

But I have to admit that while I have played many different settings and maps in both Teams and on my own, I have developed a taste for the Escalating spoils, Classic map game. Which is really just a different kind of strategy than just rolling the dice and seeing if I win or not.

After I graduate the SoC training course, I plan to shift back to more hard core strategy based games (No spoils, larger maps) and my over all favorite, Trench Warfare. I am also developing a taste for the Fog setting as well. And also I am searching for a partner who likes to discuss strategies in details and is humble enough to learn and strong enough in character to teach me as well. I have a lot to offer such a partner and I am humble enough to learn from him/her as well.

I think that the people who play many, MANY games, are truly the one's who are playing the odds. They are the one's who don't have the time to put any real thought into their strategies and are just rolling the dice to see if they win or lose. After all, if you are playing say 50 or so games, What time do you really have to put any thought into your game strategies.